Monthly Archives: July 2017

Post navigation

President Donald Trump has decided to fire Anthony Scaramucci from his new role as White House communications director. Multiple media outlets are reporting the president’s abrupt decision to terminate the wealthy and blunt-talking financier only 10 days after he had taken the job.

According to the New York Times, the request to remove Scaramucci came at the behest of Trump’s new chief of staff John Kelly, who was sworn in early this morning.

The resignation comes after a controversy-laden week for Scaramucci that included a profanity-lace tirade against other members of President Donald Trump’s White House staff.

His rant, published in The New Yorker, was mostly aimed at then-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. (Priebus resigned from his post last week.)

But that wasn’t the only eyebrow-raising moment during his 10 days in the White House. Scaramucci brought on criticism after directing comments about hair and makeup at White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Even his hire was laden with controversy. Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer reportedly submitted his resignation after learning Trump was giving Scaramucci a prominent role on the White House communications team.

Scaramucci’s short tenure followed that of Mike Dubke, who resigned in May, after just three months as White House communications director.

This morning Trump assured his Twitter followers there is “No White House chaos!”

Gary Marx, professor of psychology and neural science at New York University, had an op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times, speculating on the future of artificial intelligence. He questioned whether it is more hype than substance and indicated that it suffers from limited research efforts. He recommended a new paradigm for conducting A.I. research that would be more on the scale of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, with thousands of scientists and billions of dollars of funding. Here is an excerpt:

“I fear, however, that neither of our two current approaches to funding A.I. research — small research labs in the academy and significantly larger labs in private industry — is poised to succeed. I say this as someone who has experience with both models, having worked on A.I. both as an academic researcher and as the founder of a start-up company, Geometric Intelligence, which was recently acquired by Uber.

Academic labs are too small. Take the development of automated machine reading, which is a key to building any truly intelligent system. Too many separate components are needed for any one lab to tackle the problem. A full solution will incorporate advances in natural language processing (e.g., parsing sentences into words and phrases), knowledge representation (e.g., integrating the content of sentences with other sources of knowledge) and inference (reconstructing what is implied but not written). Each of those problems represents a lifetime of work for any single university lab.

Corporate labs like those of Google and Facebook have the resources to tackle big questions, but in a world of quarterly reports and bottom lines, they tend to concentrate on narrow problems like optimizing advertisement placement or automatically screening videos for offensive content. There is nothing wrong with such research, but it is unlikely to lead to major breakthroughs. Even Google Translate, which pulls off the neat trick of approximating translations by statistically associating sentences across languages, doesn’t understand a word of what it is translating.

I look with envy at my peers in high-energy physics, and in particular at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, a huge, international collaboration, with thousands of scientists and billions of dollars of funding. They pursue ambitious, tightly defined projects (like using the Large Hadron Collider to discover the Higgs boson) and share their results with the world, rather than restricting them to a single country or corporation. Even the largest “open” efforts at A.I., like OpenAI, which has about 50 staff members and is sponsored in part by Elon Musk, is tiny by comparison.”

Marx has a good perspective on A.I. but I believe that many large corporations especially those with significant resources such as Google, Apple, and Facebook will never give up their own interest in developing this technology. They also will be wary of collaborating with each other because of the competition factor. It is my sense that one or more of these companies will develop major breakthroughs in A.I. development in the next ten to fifteen years that will have major ramifications – some good and some less good – on many human endeavors, .

On Friday, Donald Trump, told a crowd of Long Island policemen, that they should not be “too nice” while transporting suspects. Since his comments there have been rebuttals by police organizations around the country. As reported by the New York Times:

“President Trump’s admonition that the police should not be “too nice” while transporting suspects drew laughter and cheers from a crowd of officers on Friday, but police officials swiftly made it clear they did not find the words funny.

From New York to Los Angeles, law enforcement authorities criticized the president’s remarks. Experts worried that his words could encourage the inappropriate use of force. A defense lawyer even signaled that he might use video of the speech in court.

After calling for more immigration officers to help arrest the gang members, Mr. Trump told officers, “Please don’t be too nice.”

“Like when you guys put somebody in the car, and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put your hand over” their head, he said, putting his hand above his head for emphasis. “I said, ‘You can take the hand away, O.K.?’”

“What the president recommended would be out of policy in the Los Angeles Police Department,” Mr. Soboroff told The Los Angeles Times. “It’s not what policing is about today.”

The Suffolk County Police Department, in New York, which had officers at the speech, responded within two hours.

“As a department, we do not and will not tolerate roughing up of prisoners,” it said on Twitter. The department “has strict rules & procedures relating to the handling of prisoners,” it said in another post. “Violations of those rules are treated extremely seriously.”

After a miserable week in Washington, D.C. that saw a number of failures (health care vote, military transgender ban, Anthony Scaramucci’s rants), Trump put icing on his melting cake.

Peter Kuper’s cartoon shows the first figure as a potential employee wearing Trump’s unmistakable signature “Make America Great Again” red hat, and the final one is an employee leaving with a knife in his back.

Second, Senator Lindsay Graham declared war on President Trump by stating that ““The idea that the president would fire [Special Prosecutor] Robert Mueller ― or have somebody fire Mueller ― because he doesn’t like Mueller or Mueller is doing something he doesn’t like… then we become Russia,” Graham said in an interview on Capitol Hill. “Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency unless Mueller did something wrong.”

Third, transgender people can continue to serve in the military for now, Pentagon leaders said yesterday, scrambling to clarify the confusion surrounding President Trump’s abrupt announcement a day earlier that transgender people would no longer be accepted or allowed in uniform.

In a letter to the military service chiefs, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the policy on who is allowed to serve would not change until the White House sends the Defense Department new rules and the secretary of defense issues new guidelines.

“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect,” General Dunford said in the letter.

And last but not least, Anthony Scaramucci, went on a rant against his White House colleagues, Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon. In a telephone call with a New Yorker writer reported on the magazine’s website last night, Mr. Scaramucci railed against Priebus and Bannon both of whom opposed his hiring last week. He even vowed to get the chief of staff fired. “Reince Priebus — if you want to leak something — he’ll be asked to resign very shortly,” Mr. Scaramucci said.

Michael Surbaugh, the head of the Boy Scouts of America, apologized to members of the youth organization today for the political rhetoric that was inserted into its national gathering earlier this week by President Donald Trump.

“I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree,” Michael Surbaugh wrote in an open letter published on the Scouts’ website. “That was never our intent.”

He said that every U.S. president, who serves as the Scouts’ honorary president, has been invited to speak at the national jamborees held every four years since 1937, but that the Scouts were nonetheless “steadfastly” non-partisan.

“We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program,” Surbaugh wrote.

President Trump should now apologize to the Boy Scouts! It will never happen!

Nonprofits including college and universities with large endowments are collecting more than twice as much money as they are spending on grants, facilities, administrative and other costs, a new data analysis of 1,600 organizations by The Chronicle of Philanthropy shows. In fact, for 253 of the more than 1,600 nonprofits studied, the dollars flowing into their endowments over six years exceeded the dollars flowing out by a ratio of more than four to one. The graphic above shows the ten largest endowment gains during the period (2010-2015) of the analysis. As reported by the Chronicle:

“The findings raise questions about the size of their swelling endowments at a time when Congress is taking a closer look at the issue. Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has said big university endowments will be scrutinized as part of Republicans’ review of the tax code this year. Among the concerns is that the richest nonprofit institutions are sitting on huge and growing reserves — their investment returns are not taxed — even as many students struggle to pay for postsecondary education.

While colleges dominate the list of the biggest endowment holders, a Chronicle study of large nonprofit endowments shows that other types of nonprofits are also adding dollars much faster than money is going out.

The Chronicle’s analysis looked at nonprofits with at least four years’ worth of endowment data from the start of the 2010 fiscal year through the end of the 2015 fiscal year. It focused on endowments with at least $35 million and included community foundations but not private foundations. Private foundations are required to spent at least 5 percent of their endowments a year, while other endowments face no legal spending requirements. The analysis shows that:

Disbursement rates varied widely. At the top, New England Law, Boston, added $818 for every $1 going out. At the bottom, Albuquerque Academy was among the handful of shrinking endowments; it spent $1 for every 30 cents coming in.

As a group, organizations that focus on young people handed out over half of what they brought in, keeping their overall endowment growth at 33 percent, the lowest of any group of nonprofits.

Evangelical Liberty University was among the organizations adding the most to its endowment relative to its spending. It added more than $1 billion to its endowment over the period studied and disbursed $2.3 million, or about $444 in for every $1 out.

Of those with the biggest endowments, the NCAA’s incoming and outgoing numbers were among the closest. It brought in $5.3 billion over six years, while disbursing just under $5 billion.

Most nonprofits have no endowment at all. And a large or fast-growing endowment is not evidence that an institution is hoarding cash. Any scrutiny of such reserves must be done on a case-by-case basis, nonprofit tax-law experts say, and take into consideration a nonprofit’s mission, revenue model, and any specific goals and capital projects.Leaders in charge of some of the country’s largest nonprofit endowments say they help sustain valuable work and act as a buffer against downturns in fundraising or sudden spikes in demand for programs and services.

Gary Tinterow, director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, said scaling back the museum’s endowment would eventually force sharp reductions in exhibits and in staff. The museum added $703.7 million to its endowment from the beginning of 2010 through the end of 2015, while spending $310.5 million from the fund, Its endowment stands at about $1.1 billion. If Congress needs tax revenue, nonprofits are the wrong place to look for it, said Mr. Tinterow.

“To tax institutions like museums or libraries means that those museums and libraries or hospitals will just do less. They will provide less in the community,” he said. “And is that what those congressmen who want to tax such institutions, is that what they want to do? Do they want to do less for the community?”

But critics say some groups are sitting on too much money.

“We don’t have infinite charitable resources. We have to accomplish as much as we can with the limited charitable resources we have,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the watchdog group CharityWatch. “So if groups decide to stockpile it, then that money is not freely available. It is not available to groups that would be using it to help people in need that are not receiving help, particularly with the government cutbacks.”

The data presented by the Chronicle is interesting but the nature and situation of the non-profits is different than that of the colleges and universities that operate to a degree on market system regarding tuition. I believe college and university endowments should be reviewed to determine if more should be done with these funds to offset tuition charges.

Donald Trump directed his nasty nature to transgender Americans yesterday by barring them from serving in the military. In an unexpected announcement, Trump declared “please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” This is just one year after transgender Americans secured the right to be members of the armed forces under President Obama. Below is a New York Times editorial panning Trump’s decision.

Trump declaration demonstrates again his mean-spirited, bullying disposition. For shame!

Tony

=================================

Uncle Sam No Longer Wants You

By The Editorial Board

July 27, 2017

A year after transgender Americans secured the right to defend their nation as equals in the military service, President Trump, in one of his crueler series of tweets, declared on Wednesday that he was banishing them from serving. This was obvious pandering to regressive generals and right-wing zealots as well as an effort to shift the focus from his dysfunctional White House.

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts,” he announced with Caesarean certitude, “please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” Adding insult to injury, Mr. Trump, who secured a Vietnam draft deferment for bone spurs, said the military “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory” — as if transgender enlistees would be feeble wimps after volunteering for battle.

Transgender troops were quickly defended by Senator John McCain for “serving honorably today,” and by another Republican, Senator Orrin Hatch, who said, “Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.”

The about-face on a basic human rights issue was not entirely unexpected. Last month, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis delayed for six months the Obama administration’s July 1 deadline for admitting transgender recruits. Mr. Mattis said more review was needed on how they would affect “readiness and lethality” of military forces.

Vice President Mike Pence’s staff reportedly worked with conservative House Republicans to try to bar payment for transition surgery and hormone therapy. In his tweets, Mr. Trump contended transgender troops would burden the military with “tremendous medical costs and disruption.” But this is unsubstantiated nonsense. The Obama policy required individuals to “have been stable in their preferred gender” for at least 18 months and to have completed the transition medical treatment they expected to have.

Mr. Trump’s rationale is particularly absurd, considering there are estimated to be only about 2,450 transgender troops among 1.3 million active-duty members of the military, according to a RAND Corporation study.

A year ago, the military tradition of treating transgender individuals as perverts seemed at an end when the Obama administration made gender identity a protected category in the Pentagon’s equal opportunity policy. The administration also ended the ban on gay recruits, opened all combat roles to women and named the first openly gay Army secretary.

How much deeper a retreat might Mr. Trump demand from these enlightened policies? Mr. Mattis, while given high marks as a military leader, was close-mouthed on the transgender issue during his confirmation hearing. A 2016 book he co-edited warned that new social standards imposed by political leaders “are diminishing the combat power of our military.”

So what will be the fate of those already in uniform? Will they be hounded from service? That the White House could not even answer such questions on Wednesday demonstrates how thoughtless and cruel this policy is.

President Trump was invited to give an address at the Boy Scouts of America National Jamboree in Glen Jean, West Virginia on Monday, and what should have been a big plus turned out to be an embarrassment for Trump and the Scouts. In front of an audience of 40,000, Trump went on a rant without focus and full of insults for his political rivals. Elizabeth Williamson, editorial writer for the New York Times gives her take on Trump’s speech in today’s newspaper. Her full editorial appears below. Here is an excerpt:

“Sorry, kids. President Trump was not a boy scout. Comparing his record with the Scout Law — “A Scout Is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent” — the most we can claim for him is “Clean.” Maybe “Thrifty,” since in 1989, Mr. Trump’s “charitable” foundation issued a $7 check to the Scouts around the same time Donald Trump Jr. submitted his $7 application fee…

After saying, “Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I’m in front of the Boy Scouts?” Mr. Trump did just that, rehashing his electoral victory; encouraging the kids to boo President Barack Obama, a former scout; calling the nation’s capital a “sewer”; and threatening to fire Tom Price, the health and human services secretary on the stage beside him.

Mr. Trump strutted and posed, spurting random lines from stump speeches. He told kids aged 12 to 17 that “the stock market on a daily basis is hitting an all-time high.” He meandered for six minutes about William Levitt, a real estate developer, lewdly suggesting that while Mr. Levitt’s exploits on his yacht weren’t fit for telling around the campfire, there was a lesson in there somewhere about “momentum.”

At times Mr. Trump uttered scraps of a more appropriate message, saying “the values, traditions and skills you learn here will serve you throughout your lives.” But mostly he seemed to imagine himself at a campaign rally. “What do you think the chances are that this incredible, massive crowd, record-setting, is going to be shown on television tonight?”

There is no end to the way that Trump demeans the Office of the Presidency!

Tony

=================================================

Scout’s Honor? Not for the President

by Elizabeth Williamson

July 25, 2017

Sorry, kids. President Trump was not a boy scout. Comparing his record with the Scout Law — “A Scout Is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent” — the most we can claim for him is “Clean.” Maybe “Thrifty,” since in 1989, Mr. Trump’s “charitable” foundation issued a $7 check to the Scouts around the same time Donald Trump Jr. submitted his $7 application fee.

If only the Boy Scouts of America had considered this before Mr. Trump was invited, as presidents traditionally are, to speak to 40,000 scouts and volunteers attending the Boy Scouts of America National Jamboree in Glen Jean, W.Va. Past presidents have praised the Scouts for instilling principles of good citizenship and public service.

After saying, “Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I’m in front of the Boy Scouts?” Mr. Trump did just that, rehashing his electoral victory; encouraging the kids to boo President Barack Obama, a former scout; calling the nation’s capital a “sewer”; and threatening to fire Tom Price, the health and human services secretary on the stage beside him.

Mr. Trump strutted and posed, spurting random lines from stump speeches. He told kids aged 12 to 17 that “the stock market on a daily basis is hitting an all-time high.” He meandered for six minutes about William Levitt, a real estate developer, lewdly suggesting that while Mr. Levitt’s exploits on his yacht weren’t fit for telling around the campfire, there was a lesson in there somewhere about “momentum.”

At times Mr. Trump uttered scraps of a more appropriate message, saying “the values, traditions and skills you learn here will serve you throughout your lives.” But mostly he seemed to imagine himself at a campaign rally. “What do you think the chances are that this incredible, massive crowd, record-setting, is going to be shown on television tonight?”

Mr. Trump was joined by three cabinet members who are former scouts: Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary; Rick Perry, the energy secretary; and poor Mr. Price. “Hopefully he’s going to get the votes tomorrow to start our path toward killing this horrible thing known as Obamacare,” Mr. Trump said. “He better get them. Oh, he better. Otherwise I’ll say, ‘Tom, you’re fired.’ I’ll get somebody.”

Mr. Trump began to recite the Scout Law (see above). But at the word “loyal” he got lost, saying, “we could use some more loyalty, I will tell you that.”

As he spoke, scouts cheered and chanted. After all, this was a visit from a president. But the jamboree’s social media pages erupted, as parents and partisans reacted.

The organization, too late, distanced itself. “The Boy Scouts of America is wholly non-partisan and does not promote any one political position, candidate or philosophy,” its statement read. “The speaking invitation is based on our ‘Duty to Country’ from the Scout Oath and out of respect for the Office of the President of the United States.”

It’s a shame the president of the United States didn’t see respect as a two-way street.

During his performance on Monday, Mr. Trump pledged to return for future jamborees. The Boy Scouts should promise, scout’s honor, not to invite him. Or, since he never earned an Orienteering badge, hope he gets lost on the way.

A new book about the City University of New York entitled, CUNY’s First Fifty Years: Triumphs and Ordeals of a People’s University, authored by yours truly and Chet Jordan, has just been published. Chet is on the faculty of Guttman Community College, and is a doctoral student at the CUNY Graduate Center conducting research on student experiences at CUNY community colleges. The idea for the book first came to me in 2012 when I taught a seminar commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the founding of CUNY. I have since taught several seminars on higher education drawing frequently on CUNY’s history for examples. The material from these seminars helped form the foundation for the first half of this book while Chet’s research provided important insights for the second half. Co-authoring this book represents a unique collaboration between two colleagues who bring very different perspectives about and associations with CUNY to the table including the old and the new; the senior versus the community college experience; as well as different perspectives regarding CUNY administration, faculty, and students. It needs to be emphasized that this is not an all-encompassing history of CUNY. Such a book would require volumes. Instead, it is a character sketch of our great institution, one that has not been done in the recent past.

The purpose of the book, more specifically, is to present the story of the City University of New York, established officially in 1961, as it navigates through a continual series of ups and downs as do other public university systems in the country. From its inception to the present, CUNY has served as a pawn in New York politics with mayors, governors, legislators, and community groups using it to further social, political and economic objectives. Chancellors, presidents, and governing boards have balanced these outside pressures with the education goals and objectives of their colleges and university as best they could. Our book depicts the interaction of these political and educational influences, dimensions, and entwinements that have come to characterize much of the history of the City University of New York.

If you are at all interested in the “people’s university” that has given so many the opportunity for a higher education, you might find this book a good read. Below is an excerpt.

Tony

=====================================

From Chapter One

In May 1965, freshmen orientation was held in the auditorium of Gillet Hall at Hunter College in the Bronx. Gillet Hall was one of four Gothic-style buildings that framed a campus lined with old oak trees, green spaces, playing fields, and red-clay tennis courts. The orientation was presided over by several deans and administrators, faculty and student government leaders, all of whom were white. The incoming class was for the most part also white. The women wore skirts and blouses while many of the men wore “Joe college” sweaters with a stripe or two on the arms. Speaker after speaker reminded the audience how fortunate they were to be admitted to the College. The audience, in fact, did represent a select group of students who had to have graduated in the top ten percent of their high school class in order to be admitted to the tuition-free College. Similar scenarios were being played out at City College, Brooklyn College, Queens College, and Hunter College downtown all of which comprised the senior colleges of the City University of New York (CUNY).

The Dean of Academic Standards at the orientation warned the incoming students that they would have to work hard to maintain their academic standing if they wanted to graduate in four years. She also invoked the traditional scare to look to your right and to look to your left and that one of you would not be here one year from now. While it was meant as a tactic, the fact was that many of these students would likely fail out in their first year, such was the rigor of the academic program in the pre-grade inflation days of American higher education. This was especially the case at CUNY colleges where tuition did not provide the funding for the academic programs and where there was no reason to keep underachieving students enrolled. To the contrary, faculty maintained very high grading standards and were not at all timid about giving students Cs, Ds, and Fs.

The speakers described the academic program spending time clarifying the general education requirements of sixty-plus credits. They also commented that, in their sophomore year, students should start thinking about their majors, which they would have to declare no later than the first semester of their junior year. After the formal part of the orientation ended, cookies, coffee, tea and fruit juice were provided while several musicians played popular tunes of the time. There were one or two Bob Dylan songs that portended that the times were a-changing. Interestingly, no one in the audience, not the administrators, faculty, or students foresaw the changes that would be coming. Everything that was being described by the speakers would be completely repainted if not turned upside down in the near future. By 1970, open admissions would replace selective admissions. By 1975, CUNY’s free tuition policy would be eliminated. By 1979, the entire governing structure would be recast.